Not just a double, a double invoking the N-bomb is the subject of a deletion request. October 4, 2003 9:10 PM   Subscribe

Delete this post Matt. Not only is it a repeat of a topic, the N-bomb is used. Totally unacceptable, even if you are a rapper. It still has the same connotation as hate. Still way too soon since the Civil War.
posted by alicesshoe to Etiquette/Policy at 9:10 PM (24 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I'm so starting a new thread about this, so that someone deletes this thread.
posted by The God Complex at 9:12 PM on October 4, 2003


Now we're having fun.

See, told you so. I said the Bacon thing was too obscure :)
posted by cedar at 9:13 PM on October 4, 2003


[meta metatalk]
posted by The God Complex at 9:13 PM on October 4, 2003


Damn! hama7 beat me to it. He was less direct.
posted by alicesshoe at 9:14 PM on October 4, 2003


So, I have to ask, was that thing about being a rapper and the civil war a joke? Because I laughed--twice.
posted by The God Complex at 9:14 PM on October 4, 2003


Now I gotta laugh out loud. I, for one, like the Bacon bit.

So how many other posts/comments have gotten two MeTa complaints in a row? Within 15 minutes of each other? On a weekend, even?
posted by skoosh at 9:29 PM on October 4, 2003


just to play Devil's Advocate, I personally was unaware of the old post because I hate fpp's that take up too much of the front page. Thus, since there have been others who feel the first post should have been deleted and were unsuccessful in the attempt, perhaps leniency should be extended to the second, also crappy (but differently so) post, as it mahy be new to some.
posted by cohappy at 9:37 PM on October 4, 2003


Just to play Angel's advocate, I'm not interested in people's arbitrary reasons for not reading threads, or in keeping around lesser versions of those threads for those with poor attention spans.

The first post wasn't "crappy," either. It was intelligent and thoughtful, without resorting to lazy attention-grabbing techniques.
posted by The God Complex at 9:43 PM on October 4, 2003


And cohappy is smacked DOWN ladies and gentlemen!
posted by cohappy at 9:47 PM on October 4, 2003


Sorry, tired.
posted by The God Complex at 9:48 PM on October 4, 2003


I personally was unaware of the old post because I hate fpp's that take up too much of the front page

That's a great reason not to have read the thread when it was posted the first time.

Its a really sucky reason for not doing a simple search before the link was posted.
posted by anastasiav at 9:52 PM on October 4, 2003


I think someone's about to get their posting privileges revoked.

also...

cohappy, please don't take my above comment to mean that I don't know that you didn't post the original - I do know that you didn't post the original. Just sloppy posting - especially the simple act (or, I guess, inaction) of not using the search feature makes me cranky.

I don't think everyone needs to read every post. I do think there are some simple, obvious steps that everyone should take before they post. I've worked very hard on posts, only to do a search and find that the topic has been covered here before. I think double-links are lazy and discourteous, but I also understand that your mileage may vary.
posted by anastasiav at 9:58 PM on October 4, 2003


I think double-links are lazy and discourteous

I agree. Double-posts are lame, sucky, and easily preventable.

This is just an amusing situation to me because I find myself in a situation where the post doubled is an interesting issue, but both posts were constructed poorly.

This would seem (to me) to raise an issue with a certain amount of merit: How worthy is a double-post if the original post wasn't a good one?
posted by cohappy at 11:50 PM on October 4, 2003


Although in this case, it is pretty clear the second post was of a much lower quality than the first, which makes this case a bad example for me to raise such a question...

Ehh, lets just delete it and get it over with...
posted by cohappy at 11:53 PM on October 4, 2003


"Totally unacceptable, even if you are a rapper"

I don't think any white person has a license to tell a black person if and when they can use this word.
posted by nthdegx at 4:08 AM on October 5, 2003


And vice versa. Speak as you will, and let your listeners hear what they will in it.

Dang that ol' 1st Amendment...so inconvenient at times....
posted by rushmc at 8:03 AM on October 5, 2003


I don't think any white person has a license to tell a black person if and when they can use this word.

nthdegx: How do you know alicesshoe is white? Also, why do you assume that when s/he says "rapper" s/he means "black person"? Finally, why do you think that someone's license to define what sort of language they find acceptable in polite company depends on their "race"?
posted by skoosh at 9:15 AM on October 5, 2003


I didn't assume alicesshoe was white. I made the statement with the possibility that alicesshoe was white in mind, but even if alicesshoe is black it does not invalidate my point.

I can't think of too many white rappers that do use the word, skoosh, and when it does happen they tend to be slapped down pretty fast. The issue of the word in rap generally rotates around black usage. I did not assume that alicesshoe meant a black person, but I said it with that possibility in mind. If alicesshoe did not mean "black person" it still does not invalidate my point.

I think when any word is used to oppress a group of people, then the oppressees essentially take ownership of the word, to, in my opinion, use as they will regardless of what anyone else might think. I don't think any word should be totally taboo to anyone, (1st amendment: ok), but I think certain words should be used incredibly carefully, and this is one example.

Making no prejudgement as to alicesshoe's race or what precisely he/she meant by "rapper", my point still stands.
posted by nthdegx at 9:36 AM on October 5, 2003


I think when any word is used to oppress a group of people, then the oppressees essentially take ownership of the word

Sorry, but words are "owned" by all (or by none), and I'm not about to relinquish my right to use them just because their use makes some people feel all squeebly inside (this would very quickly grow to be a very long list indeed). Hopefully, I will choose to use them judiciously, but if not, that's my error of judgement to make.
posted by rushmc at 10:23 AM on October 5, 2003


"I don't think any white person has a license to tell a black person if and when they can use this word."–nthdegx

I don't think I need a license to give my opinion. I also don't think it has any bearing whether I'm even the same race.

I may have assumed most know that there are rappers of all races. You don't see that word used in print media, for instance, only in rap lyrics. Not metal nor folk lyrics.

It's meant as a put down in general and is negative. Those of the same race using it ... I don't know, may be using it in order to take it back, but I feel way deep down, buried there, it stung in the past. If they personally feel they can use it, it's their business, but what of those others that haven't taken it back yet? Will using it convince anyone otherwise? I don't think so.

The fact that there still exist inequalities, misconceptions, prejudices and assumptions tells me differently.

If you used that word in public, you may find yourself physically accosted. Is that why you don't use it then? If the threat of getting your bones broken stops you from using it, so be it, you're learning.

Some have had enough of others thinking their shit tastes like ice cream.
posted by alicesshoe at 6:42 PM on October 5, 2003


Not metal nor folk lyrics

In either case, alicesshoe is quite right, nigger cannot be used in public. Instead, use "Nizzle" as in, "Fo Shizzle" when attempting to gather up mad props to compliment your white ass honky wigger friends.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:51 PM on October 5, 2003


If they personally feel they can use it, it's their business, but what of those others that haven't taken it back yet?

The problem with your conceptualization is that it depends upon the idea of "they" and "their." There is no monolithic "them," but rather, 5 billion individuals who self-identify with and/or participate to one degree or another in many, many cultures and communities, some based upon skin color and some not. You assume homogeneity where it doesn't exist. And in any case, no group or individual can "own" a word, any more than they can "own" a dance move, a clothing style, a story, or any other cultural artifact. Other than in the strict (and limited) capitalist sense, we do not "own" that which we create.
posted by rushmc at 7:36 AM on October 6, 2003


What's up, nigger?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:17 AM on October 6, 2003


Ain't no thang like a chicken wang.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:40 AM on October 6, 2003


« Older Discretion in speech is more than eloquence.   |   The N-word Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments